Pentax K-1 Review

After years of promises and months of teasing, Ricoh has finally unveiled the Pentax K-1, a 36.4MP full-frame DSLR built around the K lens mount. It becomes the only conventional DSLR to offer a full frame sensor with image stabilization.

The camera is extensively sealed and features magnesium alloy construction. But despite its range-topping status and high-end build, it has a relatively low list price of $1799.

Pentax K-1 Key Specifications

36.2MP full-frame CMOS sensor with no anti-aliasing filter

5-axis image stabilization rated to 5 stops by CIPA standard testing

100% pentaprism viewfinder with 0.7x magnification

33-point AF system (25 cross-type)

Extensive weather-sealing

1/200 sec flash sync speed

14-bit Raw recording (DNG or PEF)

AA filter simulation

Multi-shot Pixel Shift Resolution mode

Built-in GPS with electro-magnetic compass and Astrotracer function

4.4 fps continuous shooting (6.5 fps in APS-C crop mode)

Wi-Fi

1080/30p video

Sensor-shift cleverness

As this list of spec highlights should make clear, the K-1 makes the most of its moveable sensor. As well as the image stabilization, which is rated to an impressive 5 stops, the camera offers a host of other clever features. These include anti-aliasing filter simulation which vibrates the sensor during exposure to intentionally blur high frequency detail across multiple pixels, to avoid moiré. Then there's the Pixel Shift Resolution mode that increases color resolution by shooting four consecutive images with the sensor moved by one pixel - effectively canceling the Bayer color filter array and lowering noise by image averaging.

The other sensor-shift modes are also clever: the K-1 includes Horizon Correction, which rotates the sensor if you hold the camera slightly off-level, and the Astrotracer system that uses the sensor's movement to cancel-out the effect of the Earth's rotation when taking images of stars (something it can calculate using its GPS).

Upgraded AF and metering

The sensor at the heart of the SAFOX 12 AF module. It gives 33 AF points in all, 25 of which are cross type and three of which offer greater accuracy when paired with bright lenses.

The camera gets a new AF module (called SAFOX 12) which features 33 focus points, 25 of which are cross type. The central three of these offer higher precision when used with F2.8 or faster lenses and the central 25 continue to focus down as far as -3EV.

An 86,000-pixel RGB metering sensor acts to offer 77-segment metering but also aids the camera's autofocus system, enabling scene analysis and subject detection to yield accurate exposures and automatically select the correct AF point to stay on your subject (subject tracking) when using continuous AF.

Core competence

Overall, though, it's not the clever use of the sensor that most stands out about the K-1, it's Ricoh's obvious focus on the core photographic capabilities. There's a reason we chose to list the viewfinder size so far up the list of specifications - it's because we think it's something users coming from existing Pentax cameras will most appreciate. Sure, there are multiple exposure modes and time lapse options, but the things that most jumped out are the high resolution sensor, the well positioned dials, the large viewfinder and image stabilization - the core things that help you to get better images. Speaking of core things: some may bemoan the omission of a dedicated AF point control, though the four way controller can be re-purposed for this.

Which isn't to say the K-1 is entirely without the occasional flourish. Aside from clever sensor shift modes (that some - particularly landscape - photographers will surely come to love), the most obvious of these is its 'Cross-Tilt' LCD. The Cross-Tilt mechanism takes a tilting LCD cradle and mounts it on four legs that slide along a cross-shaped series of slots, allowing the screen to extend outwards and move in a complex manner, before the screen itself is tilted up/down.

The K-1's Cross-Tilt LCD system has all the elegance of two deck chairs mating, but it provides a useful range of articulation.

Mounted to the back of the LCD are four white LEDs that can be used to shed light on the rear controls. Another LED, whose behavior can be set independently, shines a light on the lens mount for easier alignment when swapping lenses in the dark. The camera's card bay and remote release port are also illuminated by LEDs.

For the most part, though, the camera's focus is very much toward a traditional approach to still photography. Video capture tops-out at 1080/30p (which can also be encoded as 60i, if you prefer), which is a long way from cutting edge, but we really doubt that Ricoh has would-be film makers in mind with this model.

Still shooters are likely to appreciate the camera's Smart Function system, which adds a third command dial to the top right corner of the camera and a further control to define its function. The three dials give direct control over three of the camera's parameters with the ability to customize one of them without going anywhere near a menu.

Pricing

And how much does Ricoh want for this twin-dial, weather-sealed, magnesium alloy, image-stabilized full frame camera? The list price is a fiercely competitive $1799, body only. To put that in perspective, that's $200 lower than the launch price of Nikon's more basic D610 and $300 less than what Canon originally expected for the EOS 6D, meaning there's only a $100 premium over the list price of Sony's image-stabilized a7 II.

This is a very similar pattern we've seen from Ricoh before, with the company's models often including higher-end features (twin control dials, prism viewfinders and weather sealing) at a lower price than you'd need to spend to get them from one of the other DSLR makers.

Lens lineup

At present, Pentax offers a mixture of full-frame compatible lenses, including a handful of screw-drive FA prime lenses from the film-era and the much-loved 31, 43 and 77mm FA Limiteds from the late '90s/early 2000s. However, the company is already starting to flesh-out a range of more modern 'D FA' zooms, including a 15-30mm F2.8, a 24-70mm F2.8 (both suspiciously reminiscent of certain current Tamron-branded zooms) a 70-200mm F2.8 and an 150-450mm F4.5-5.6. For now, though, those looking for modern, fast-focusing primes will be disappointed.

But that isn't the whole story, of course. Part of the reason for all the interest in a full-frame Pentax is the vast collection of K-mount lenses that exist around the world. The K-1 lets you use the aperture rings on these lenses and can give a focus confirmation beep with the central AF point, even with manual focus lenses. When you mount an older, manual lens the K-1 prompts you to manually specify the focal length so that the image stabilization can be tuned appropriately.

The K-1 can, of course, still use the Pentax DA lenses designed for the company's APS-C cameras. By default the camera will use a 15MP APS-C-sized crop of the sensor if a DA lens is mounted but can be made to use its full sensor region, if you'd prefer. Ricoh has published a list of those lenses that will produce relatively useable results in full frame mode, if the aperture is stopped down.

DA Prime Lens / Utility on K-1

DA 14mm

Crop Mode Only

DA 50mm F1.8

Stopped-down

DA 21mm Limited

Crop Mode Only

DA* 55mm F1.4

Stopped-down

DA 15 F4 Limited

Crop Mode Only

DA 70mm Limited

Stopped-down

DA 35mm F2.4

Stopped-down

DA* 200mm F2.8 SDM

Fully Functional

DA 35mm F2.8 Macro

Stopped-down

DA* 300mm F4 SDM

Fully Functional

DA 40mm Limited

Stopped-down

DA 560mm F5.6

Fully Functional

DA 40mm XS

Stopped-down

RC1.4X

Crop Mode Only

The company says that all of the DA zooms will only cover the crop sensor region.

@Chris Thanks for your reply, and for re-running the test (and changing some words in the written portion). I actually think the bulk of the review is quite fair and complimentary and as I stated I only take issue with some of the test parameters, your reference cameras and some of the wording in the commentary. I'd prefer to see an open statement that K-1'is not optimized for action subjects, and using your tests to show why. I question why you would extend the bicycle test to infer the camera is not suitable for shooting fast-moving children - I don't think you have supported that.

Also, (as I am confident you are aware) Pentax uses a form of in-body image stabilization called Shake Reduction, or SR. In your response you stated you re-ran the bicycle test with 'VR' both on and off. I'm also certain you are aware VR is an acronym for Nikon's in-lens image stabilization, Vibration Reduction. Such a slip - surely unintentional and not really meaningful - just lends another bit of credence to some Pentax Users' opinion that the AF portion of the review suffers from Confirmation Bias.

Again- overall a very nice review, with I think still some issues in camera setup and test structure in the AF section, but your efforts to respond are appreciated.

I imagine! I actually get it, though my first reaction was frustration. I know I bought a fabulous landscape / studio camera. I don't expect class-leading tracking AF. I just wish for everyone's sake DPR had qualified the AF portion with that context. Your test is your test - so be it. Just put the results in context of what the camera was designed for and it's all good.

I think Pentax shooters are generally older than those of the other major brands and don't respond favorably to vernacular language. I know I have difficulty responding appropriately to my adult children; they usually don't mean what it sounds to me they are saying. :D

I personally dislike the AF test. I think it weighs a times heavier on scene and image tracking versus what usually happens when you pan and move the camera with the subject as what typically happens.

However this test is repeatable. It's one where if dpreview had enough $$ they could even simulate it in a studio (think a moving focus target mounted on a radio controlled vehicale frame at a on a straight or zig zag track coming to the camera). Then you could also add in back lighting, etc .. and also have controlled acceleration and deceleration.

However AF tests are HARD .. and they are hard to be repeatable across multiple cameras, systems, lenses and nuances.

So I have to respect that dpreview is trying to do something across a VERY difficult problem domain- most reviews don't even try. It's a hard problem, and it's nice to see dpreview try and then put up with all this after the fact.

"However this test is repeatable. It's one where if dpreview had enough $$ they could even simulate it in a studio (think a moving focus target mounted on a radio controlled vehicale frame at a on a straight or zig zag track coming to the camera). Then you could also add in back lighting, etc .. and also have controlled acceleration and deceleration."

The test you describe would be repeatable. The one they currently perform is not. Too many variables - outdoors lighting, movement and speed of rider, different faces, different clothes, and probably different bikes. You're bound to get variable results like that.

@Rishi: I'm concerned about several parts of your reasoning that you've displayed over the past several days. One of them is that you seem to think that it's valid to treat K-3, K-3 II and K-1 as though they are one and the same.

That's quite a theory given the well-documented improvements made from one model to the next, including better IBIS and moving from SAFOX 11 to SAFOX 12.

I'm also not sure what your final question in the above post is supposed to suggest, or how you think it strengthens your insistence that you are performing a standardised test when clearly you're failing to control several variables. Any congruence in your test results could easily be explained by any of those other variables, or the fact that there is no blinding in your experimental design. If I wanted to prove - even subconsciously - that a particular autofocus model sucks, I might ride the bike more erratically, for instance. [tbc]

"Any congruence in your test results could easily be explained by any of those other variables, or the fact that there is no blinding in your experimental design."

Wrong. Any consistency between brand systems we see across many models over many years, despite varying up the person, the weather, the time of day, etc. indicates that the pattern we're observing is inherent to the system, and not some systemic problem of our test.

Leandros S, the tests were performed many times, on different days, in the case of K3, as I remember, they went back and tried even different lenses, same result. Why is that? The simplest explanation: Pentax's AFC is just worse than others, which in fact is actually the real fact, even if fanboys will never admit it.

I think 'pure' images, or the 'straight out of camera' concept just doesn't work anymore. Pure in this sense would mean either a camera processed jpeg, or a RAW file loaded with default development parameters applied, which would be washed out and relatively pointless.

If you're viewing it on a website, it's been processed one way or another.

I am so sorry, but I also have Nikon D810 and when I compare the real photos of Pentax K1+15-30 with my Nikon photos, i can say - yes, photo from K1 are significant better then from my D810+14-24. And real weather resistent system (body+lens instead Nikon's just body with minor weather protection + also minor weather protection for lenses, and also no warranty for working under the zero temperature. Yes, i used my Nikon at -15 and he worked fine, but anyway, there was no warranty for it). Also I want to say - i don't know why but really resolution by Nikon D810 is little less then from K1 (its strange because they have same matrix). And one small problem - Nikon say the D810 has -3EV autofocus sensitive module, but its a lie, he is just -EV, in the internet people can see many tests about it. And Pentax has real -3EV sensitive autofocus.

yeah, Tamron has more sharpness, better hydrophobic coating, great stabilization, much better focus range, just very little havy and has one weakness - impossible to use filters, and he is cheaper then Nikon. But here is one problem - Tamron is not make this lens for pentax (also Pentax don't want the stabilization), and Pentax 15-30 is significant expensive then Tamron. But anyway, its not big problem for landscape photographers, because they will pay money for lens instead camera, which is much better way for photographers in general. Also we must say - yes, pentax version of this lens is full weather resistance, outside materials are better then tamron version, also he has SDM motor (but i can't see any difference in speed betweed SDM and Tamron's focus drive motor)...

Sounds like a whole bunch of red herrings that ignore the fact that your initial post, which tried to assert that our evaluation of the K-1 was somehow wrong, doesn't disagree with anything we've said.

To DPR: Glad to see you dropped the "poor" wording regarding the AF. Very "poor" choice of words. Be careful, as you can easily create a firestorm with sweeping comments like that (which are not true).

Chris, Thank you for the wording adjustment. It helps. I think those who have been around for a while understand the dynamics of this controversy. Those vested in Canikon seem to feel threatened. I think the DPR review will diminish the sales of the Pentax K-1. The responses by DPR staff, for example Mr. Sanyal, to user comments has been quite an eye-opener.

For sport photography now there is two cameras - Nikon D500 and Nikon D5, Of course, old Canon users can't switch to Nikon because they have sooo many lenses and also Canon fast lences always focusing very fast... Pentax K1 is NOT for sport photography and I can't understand why people are hard discussing here this question? Because of it, for example, in China now Pentax K1 sales rapidly, becaise in China also sooooo many landscape photograpers, I saw by my eyes at shop how some photographers came there with big bag inside Nikon professional equipment and bought this camera with 15-30 lens. And he was not stupid because D810 have not astro tracer (just D810A has it) and Pixel-shift technology, and 15-30 by pentax is far better then 14-24 by Nikon, also K1 has less noise then D810, better colors and DNG file format...

Clearly the Chinese are an uninformed lot. Had they first read the DPR review, they could have bought themselves something better than the K1, and saved themselves the undoubted heartache when they try to focus on something.

1. How far was the cyclist away from the camera when the sequence starts? DOF with 200mm F2.8 is quite shallow, depending on distance, so your claim that focus point being on the shirt infers the face should be in focus may not hold if the distance is too short, and especially when cyclist gets nearer.

2. You claim focus point was on the cyclist's shirt, which is off-center towards the upper focus points, yet EXIF shows the focus point was the center one, was there an error in your focus point set up? If indeed the focus point was not even on the shirt, one can certainly expect the face would not be in focus.

The distance that we use for these tests is consistent across all cameras that we are testing. As for the second portion of the question there is a new series of images up on the Autofocus Page http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentax-k-1/6 where the center focus point was dead on the cyclist's head. We decided to run the test again (for the third time) to debunk the issue of the focus point being off center leading to erroneous results. The results that we saw were largely the same. We did this in triplicate with VR off and on as well. We then ran an additional set of runs in triplicate with the central focus point on the checkered pattern in the jersey and we got the same results. Af hold was turned off for this run.

Chris, I would say the results look much better with focus point on cyclist's face compared to the sequence that was up before. Would DPR be able to do the same test with Nikon D810 as a peer comparison?

Chris, thank you for redoing the test with the main subject (the face) inside the small focus point coverage!It is still remarkable that TheCameraStoreTV has far less negative results:https://youtu.be/87yGmD71nyA?t=10m50s

No problem @conjure we really want to be thorough about this and double and triple check our results. Rishi has already addressed the camera store results a bit further down but I would be very skeptical of their findings- in the 1080p video upload there are a number of out focus images in their sequence. I have a very hard time believing their conclusions based upon that test- especially since they didn't even provide full res images and they also didn't indicate which AF settings they utilized for their tests. In the end they definitely also admitted that the AF system in the K-1 is not up to par with Canon or Nikon AF systems.

Thanks Chris M Williams.Because of Adobe, this line is killed in the exifs und you don't Get the SW-Version, really not your problem or fault.

What I'm concerned of ist the Firmware version aside of thatDSP Firmware Version : 1.10.20.05 my K1DSP Firmware Version : 1.00.00.00 DPR's K1.This may be a reason for problems too.

And you can be quite shure, that I checked your pictures from IMGP2813.jpeg to IMGP2813.jpeg. Thank you for redoing it.

From the exiftool 10.22 point of view it is Focus Mode : AF-C (Focus-priority)AF Point Selected : Center; Single Point

And as far I can see this Focus point hits at least the helmet in the middle of the picture. From my point of view the results (hit-rate) is better now. And I'm quite shure that a sports-camera will top this easily. The rest increasing the hitrate will be done by the experience of the photographer by getting used too.

thecamerastoreTV's showing you 0.8MP downsized images in that video. Many of them still look out-of-focus. That actually suggests worse performance, if anything, compared to our tests.

How are you interpreting that as better? Just because Nick said 'it worked pretty well' on camera? Wow, remind us next time to not actually include any data and results and just write some words and ask you to take our word for it next time.

Funny that some people will choose a random test that shows what they want it to show, over AF tests that at least appear to strive for some level of control. This is the very definition of confirmation bias. Except in this case, what's funny is the test you're choosing to favor actually shows very little at all (0.8MP images... ??), and if anything shows worse performance than what we show.

Our results focusing on Richard's face this time around are still a somewhat paltry 33%. It's no different than before. Again, how are you interpreting that as better?

Let me restate again in the hopes that it's clearer to you this time: the 33% success this time around is no better than the 33% success last time around. See the results of all of our tests collated for you here:

Yesterday's results, that were heralded as botched incompetence, are no worse than today's results, which are no worse or better than the results we originally published with the review on Tuesday (which were also complained about).

I owned a Ricoh Twin Lens Reflex and the Original Asahi Pentax Spotmatic in the early 1960 along with Leica, Canon, Nikon, Yashica, Miranda and others. I eventually settled for Nikon because I like the design better than any of the others.

Sans for the hype, I very much like the IQ I was getting from the Spotmatic and the Takumar lenses. But the bayonet mount of the Nikkor lenses was the deal maker.

I'll stop-by a local camera dealer and try this Pentax K-1 but only to look.

@Rishi We all know the K-1 AF is not tuned for sports / action 10fps bursts with 90% hits. We understand the PDAF module groups the AF points inside the APSc crop frame. We know there are fewer f/2.8 and cross points than other cameras. We don't expect a reviewer to say the K-1 has ground-breaking AF. We only expect fair reviews, free of Confirmation Bias, selection of pejorative adjectives not found in other camera reviews and please - no snarky Amazon Kindle references. That's why we're responding as we are.

At what point do you stop this emotional defense of your flawed AF review, cease bitterly clinging to sock-puppet supporting posts, man up and just do the test again, correctly this time?

I've owned a K-1 since May 6th. I assert your review is unfair and incorrect. Unfortunately I am not a level-headed professional photographer, willing to arrange repeatable tests and post images to educate you. Rather, I'm one of those crazy Pentax people.

I'm sure there are plenty of level-headed K-1 users who - understanding as I do that Pentax documentation is unsatisfactory - will offer recommendations on how to set up the camera to perform your tests such that the results will actually indicate the K-1 capabilities.

After all, your goal is to accurately reflect truth to the buying public, isn't it?

@silversalts The AF portion of the review isn't flawed- we work very hard to make sure that we get things right and we even repeated the test again (for the third time) there is a new series of images up on the Autofocus Page where the center focus point was located dead on the cyclist's head. The results that we saw were largely the same. We did this in triplicate with VR off and on as well. We then ran an additional set of runs in triplicate with the central focus point on the checkered pattern in the jersey and again we got the same results. AF hold was turned off for the run that's posted on the page.

I will stop defending a 'flawed AF test' when we uncover our test was 'flawed'. No matter which day we do our test, no matter if we focus on Richard's shirt, face, or bike, or Sam's face, whether we set AF Hold to 'Off', 'Low', or 'High' - we got the same, repeatable result.

Others Pentax users themselves have now confirmed similar results here and here.

You admit you haven't done any controlled test, nor are you familiar with other brands/bodies, and that you're a Pentax brand loyalist. Yet you're convinced we are incorrect in asserting the K-1 does not match (or really even come near) the performance of its contemporaries.

While we're provided direct evidence to the contrary if you read this review, along with our other reviews showing the performance of cameras like the a7R II, a6300, D500, 5DS, RX100 IV, etc.

how can you defend a test that you constantly change what was in focus, first jersey, then lining between jersey and pants when it came to light that no focus point covers the jersey. Then when exif was examined it came clear that the focus point was on the knee. (center point nr 17)How can you defend that? Why is it so hard to admit that mistakes where done?Thats what happened with the PS test a couple of weeks ago. Dpr admitted, ok, we messed up and people was less upset.

Because it's actually better to constantly change up variables sometimes, because if you still get the same result, then statistics mandate that the trend you've observed is probably true.

You're showing a staggering lack of appreciation of how difficult it is to actually test AF, and that we're trying to work around that by observing trends across many cameras, many lenses, many runs, etc.

Also, as we've explained many times elsewhere, it doesn't matter what was under the center point as long as it was the same subject within the DOF of what we were trying to focus on. What should also clue you in on that is that none of the results changed whether we started focus on the bike frame, or Richard's face, or Sam's face.

Again, statistics rules out any one test being invalid when all tests show the exact same trend.

And you don't even know about all the other tests and verification we did that we used to inform our opinion, but didn't publish.

At this point several members who've repeated our test get exactly our hit-rate. I've even received PMs saying 'I did your test and you were essentially right - thanks for pointing this out and I hope Pentax takes this critical feedback seriously.'

Ironically, thecamerastoretv video many have linked to as somehow representative of how focus works better than in our tests shows a whole lot of out-of-focus shots in the sequence of Chris running, visible even at the ridiculously low resolutions of vertical frames in a 1080p video (< 1MP resolution). They also provide no full-resolution images.

So we'd be very curious to see the actual data from someone who claims they're getting drastically better results in a similar test/scenario.

@Rishi: I'm sad of your attitude, "At this point several members who've repeated our test get exactly our hit-rate. I've even received PMs saying 'I did your test and you were essentially right - thanks for pointing this out and I hope Pentax takes this critical feedback seriously.'

This is the most dishonest comment I've ever read. I'm disgusted. Because, you are not honest, you find an excuse to any result because you don't want to see results as they are. If you have this attitude at a court, the judge will hate you and no one will trust your saying. You are totally biased.

You retain only bad results and you ignore the good ones.You should be sued at the court for broadcasting false information.At DPReview company, please hire personnel who has decent professionalism when responding to users of DPreview..

I was sure I saw this bikers suit somewhere......It's the latest stealth biker's suit developed by Stark industries for S.H.I.E.L.D.........Calm down guys it's a great camera. We have great resolution, pixel shift, tons of DR and better iso performance from any sensor with this resolution out there.About the autofocus performance is good for everything except the Olympics and the Champions League finals.Rishi you are a great reviewer and photographer. DPreview's new breed but you shouldn't leave a biker fool you. I am shooting kits and bikers since I have read the review and the results were not disastrous like yours. (maybe it's the s.h.i.e.l.d suit).

Rishi: first let me express my appreciation that you guys put up with us :-)To my point: could it be there is no progress in that discussion between DPR and many of us because we have different frames of reference? So let me phrase it like this: you make a blanket statement that K1 AF is poor. What impression do you think this makes on Pentax users who mostly have a different experience? What impression have you expected to make? And: why do they claim to have a different experience than what you have assessed? Are they not using their camera "propperly"? Are they covering up the truth? Are they nasty folks that enjoy rioting and driving you crazy? :-)

I disagree with the results of the AF tests. Firstly, you could clarify easy which exact(!) test characters were used in the test. It can't be that hard editing your article. Secondly, where's the video like in the Canon 5DS or Sony a7RII test? If you're boasting in the comments your tests "evolve", well then you should follow a consistent strategy. If you show how the AF-C work on the K-1 like you did it for "better" cameras it would clarify the situation, too! Don't be shy, we're agog!It look like you make this videos to proof "good" AF but lack the common sense to do the SAME proof on a "bad" AF.

Thirdly, I disagree with your results since I had to do some extra testing in the last 24h. I own a K-1 with a D-FA 100mm Macro WR, my only AF lens worth to mention. As you probably remember, that's a screwdriver AF with a long throw. Odd enough I got cars at ~80km/h in and after sunset in focus, even using the predicting following them. At first glance on the small monitor I thought the AF missed but at home my series didn't show much difference to what you called cameras with better AF.I had no problems to do the same today in bright sunlight with cars around ~50km/h and bikers, too.

My advise is that you should lay the cards on the table and consider the possibilty of a faulty AF or lens/AF related problem.

This is getting repetitive. Your vague anecdotal evidence (and everyone else's) just amounts to insisting "yes but sometimes the AF in the K-1 works". This is not a rebuttal, you are merely stating the obvious.

btw the DFA macro has a long focus throw, but is graded so almost all of that is close focus. The throw 5m-inf. (where your bikes and cars were presumably) is very short, and the focus elements are also relatively light compared to, say, a 70-200/2.8. It should be relatively quick and easy for the camera to control.

I'm sure they're some people up to it, it's only a day since the trouble started. I've done some extra tests for myself and can't confirm their issues.I agree in only one point: the focus lock sometimes need a fraction of a second to lock on the target in low light.

I'm looking at another set of boat photos now, still hard to make a comparison to the bike test but they are the best examples yet that this camera can do decent AF-C, fast target and moving towards the camera at speed unlike some of the pictures people are posting that are mainly lateral movement.

There are a bunch of out of focus shots in their sequence of Chris running

... and that's visible in vertical frames embedded in a horizontal 1080p video. In other words, visible in a 0.8MP resized frame.

Imagine how out-of-focus Chris would look at 100%, had they provided full-res photos like we did.

Despite their not setting up the test/shot, providing no info about what exact modes / settings they used, they're to be trusted over our tests done in triplicate, where we even outline in detail our AF mode + AF area mode + AF Hold setting ('Off', though we also tested 'Low' and 'High')?

They even admit it's not up to par with Canon or Nikon systems, so why is that video even being quoted as showing a different result from ours? B/c Nick said 'pretty well'? Far as I'm concerned, w/out 100% crops, we can't draw any conclusions, other than it perhaps performed worse for them.

Even from the small youtube frame, it is possible to determine that the plane of focus fell much closer to the subject than in the DPR tests. It also should be pointed out that the TCSTV test was vastly more difficult with the number of possible alternative high contrast targets (i.e. the "aspens", which look like birches to me) for the camera to lock onto. In the video Nick was shooting at 1/500th which may account for a small amount of motion blur. Both tests used f/2.8, but in real life, a smaller aperture would offer a wider safety net. I'm not saying that TCS's results invalidates the DPR tests, which I agree shows disappointing performance, my point is simply that others are having more success with the camera. Perhaps there is some magical combo of hold priority and AF point selection that yields a higher success rate. And yes, I agree that it should be easier to achieve in a flagship camera.

@Maxfield_photolooked at that video on my 5k monitor full rez...I went frame by frame on the running sequence, don't know what you are showing here, as more than 60% of the shots were out of focus to severely out of focus.Subject wasn't even running fast, more of a jog and it still had trouble keeping it in focus in center frame.

"Even from the small youtube frame, it is possible to determine that the plane of focus fell much closer to the subject than in the DPR tests"

?

Our rollover viewed in its current size, not clicking through to 100%, appear to show all the single-point AF-C shots in focus.

What are you talking about?

And as NexLupus points out - more of the shots in their video looked out of focus than in-focus.

More to the point - do you even know what focus mode they used? No, they don't tell you. You just choose to trust it because... the guy said it 'did pretty well'?

OK, fair enough - but if you choose to trust their shots, you're accepting an even worse hit-rate than ours, b/c as I said, all our AF-C single point images look sharp when viewed small, which is a higher hit-rate than in their video.

I still don't get why dpreviews test methodology is being criticised when I can't think of another site that goes into anywhere near as much depth about AF. Most camera review sites spend precious little time discussing what is such a major aspect.

People claiming other sites have better AF testing is just ridiculous. The only time I really see decent AF analysis elsewhere is when individuals do camera reviews like Andy Rouse, he really talked a lot about the AF system of the 1Dx and I think he's doing the same with the MKII but even then he doesn't use any kind of even semi standardised test.

So DPR did a predictive AF test of a 36 mp DSLR with the lens at max aperture and concluded that the K-1 has "poor AF"? That's odd, the D800, D600 and Canon 6D didn't get any such "AF test". Oh brother. No wonder people are angry about this review.

"I also ran into serious frustration when I realized the AF points do not illuminate until focus is confirmed. This is incredibly problematic when shooting in a dark environment unless you leave the focus point dead center. Even then, it's problematic, as one needs to be able to see the point in order to place it over the subject! Because of this, every time I looked through the viewfinder I was forced to move the AF point around using the directional pad simply so I could see what area of the frame I'd left it in. Doing this momentarily delayed me and occasionally caused me to miss a shot."

Your frustration was unnecessary.

SIMPLY press the "AF mode" button near the lens and the selected AF point will be illuminated. While pressing the "AF mode" button, you can half press the shutter release & it will indicate focus acquisition.

In AF Select mode & if you have selected center AF point, pressing the OK button will illuminate it. Of course, the K-1 only illuminate the focus point(s) for a fraction of a second. I wouldn't want it to illuminate the AF points all the time when I'm shooting in the dark as I won't be able to see my subject.

Posted this in the Pentax SLR forum, it does not appear to be documented in the manual (I can't find it anyway) which is a pretty big miss:

Press and hold the AF Mode button on the lens mount to illuminate the focus point dots and the VF overlay, AF and shutter are both still active while AF Mode button is held although changing point is disabled.

In focus point select modes the selected focus point/points illuminate when pressing any of the 4way buttons, pressing the OK button illuminates everything briefly.

Thanks for the tip, but that is not what I'd call either simple or intuitive. The AF mode button is the AF mode button, the expected function is enabling the selection of AFC/AFS/AFA and point grouping. That the selected AF point is highlighted would appear to be a fortuitous side effect.

While I expect reviewers to spend enough time to learn the specifics of any given camera, that's beyond what I consider reasonable expectation.

So every time you wish to see your AF point in the dark, you have to break out your left hand and press the AF mode button?

That's still a con. We even pointed out we tried to get around this limitation by momentarily moving the AF point back and forth. We tried to get around this issue, and found the workaround cumbersome compared to what contemporaries offer.

Therefore, it's still a con, and our opinion is unchanged by this information.

exept sport photography, this is a best camera in the world, and in studio or outside static situation you can get photos like medium format cameras, even better, by pixel-shift technology... camera is real weather-saled,... pentax 15-30 (=tamron 15-30/2.8) lens is BEST in class... with 24-70 and 70-200 + some lim and two macro lences you can get complete set for any kind of photography except sport... and camera is just 1800 USD! For some other kind of photography there is Canon and Nikon systems in twice and more prices... Again: for landscape (including true astro!) and studio photographers nothing is better then this pentax... in the rain, cold weather there is nothing like this pentax, for high resolution and true colod photos there is nothing like this pentax, and there is nothing in this price also... take it and go to photography...

@zakaria - so what you're saying is: if we word it exactly like you want, you'll accept our AF results. If we don't, you will not accept our claims surrounding AF based on our objective testing, and will vehemently oppose it, claim we hate Pentax, and discredit us or use whatever means necessary to try and get us to reframe our opinion so it matches yours.

Sounds like you'd like to have us held hostage to your beliefs, which doesn't sound like a sound moral or business decision for one of the most trusted camera review sites in the world.

No, i didn't test the AF od the Pentax K1, but as many people say in internet he is not same as Nikon's and Canon's modern AF system, just a this. For me most AF systems are very enough in the work, for example, I also have old Pentax K30 and in most situation his AF is enough for working. I think the AF of K1 will be much, far better then AF of K30 and will be enough in most situations, especially when he has so sensitive AF module.

A while back I read that Pentax did something that deviated from Adobe's specs for the DNG format when it comes to pixel shift files. It may not be possible for Adobe to update DNG to accommodate Pentax, nor should they really be expected to, but it might be possible for Lightroom/ACR to support pixelshift files in PEF format in the future. If so that's an easy work around, you could use assign it to one of the 5 user modes.

Until then, users will have to either be content to shoot static scenes, or use Silkypix as their RAW converter for pixelshift files. Once the file is converted to a standard format like TIFF though, there's no reason it can't be imported into another program.

a little redundant on the market, but i'm sure it's a boon for pentaxians or those interested in a limited kit (yet bulky) AF kit.

Personally I could never see the need (or desire) or even wish to get behind a non stabilized viewfinder and AF / AE system but the sensor itself is stabilized.

I'm sure it's possible .. don't get me wrong - before the dozen remaining pentaxians jump all over me. it's simply not optimal and just about every camera manufacturer offers a better solution and photographer experience (EVF with sensor stabilization, IS in lens for optical, hybrid such as sony's newer systems,etc). It's half baked - especially with longer telephotos where framing can be drastically different then what the sensor sees, not to mention part of the advantage of IS is stabilizing the view and also the AF system.

"part of the advantage of IS is stabilizing the view and also the AF system."

If you're shaking so badly that you can't maintain the framing, no stabilization system will help. If what you are saying were true, long tele lenses with no IS would have the same issue. IS prevents motion blur, it has no bearing on framing. I prefer to know if I'm shaking the camera, so I can take counter-measures.

"I'm actually surprised it's not on the con's list actually"

That's a ridiculous statement. Every review and photography site considers IBIS to be an advantage. Shake reduction performance has steadily progressed to where it is now, 5 stops on the K-1. Every lens I mount on a Pentax is stabilized, with no cost or IQ penalty for ILIS floating elements. Those are the advantages.

@rrccadThe Cons bullet list already has a few totally unnecessary, borderline passive aggressive Cons like "Poor AF" and "Limited selection of modern AF lenses". A reviewer cannot make the case that the K-1 has the best AF system of any Pentax ever made and then list "Poor AF" as the very first bullet point. No way. Just as lens selection absolutely does not belong in a review of a camera body. What next speedlight selection? The fact that you want to add "5 Axis IBIS" to the list of Cons makes me think maybe you have a future as a camera reviewer.

If you like to see IBIS on the con list you're getting the hate you deserve.IBIS is usually more useful, like Pentax stated with the features of the K-1.Add it ALL up and then consider that ALL bodys without stabilization had to get a extra row for a super con and -20% rating.It's partly true for the telephoto part but I'm not shooting 600mm hand held, thank you very much. So you're refering to the smallest part of photographer who need a long stabilized lens while the most photographer making photos on a tripod or <300mm would profit more from IBIS.

That's my point - one of you could simply devise a test with IS turned On and Off. Then they would post proof about the impact on AE and AF.Nobody did that. Why? Because it's a bogus theory. You know it can be proven only false, so you won't even try to prove it.

Are you sure what you are framing in the viewfinder is not what you are taking a picture of? Or it's just a bogus theory just like the other one?By the way, precision requirements differs from situation to situation; when you're working hard to track a fast moving subject you don't care that much about precise composition. But at times composition might be critical - camera on tripod and so on - and it's the Pentax SR which makes things easier, with the Composition Adjustment.Oh, and do you know what makes harder to precisely frame a moving subject? Electronic viewfinders. Because they lag.

you turn on IS on EVERY other system and your viewfinder is stablized.

pentax is NOT. the same complaint was around with the A900.

is that really so hard to comprehend? Common sense and thinking too much for you in the defense of all things Pentax?

you actually think you need to test that? what?

no matter how much you deflect, cry, deflect, duck, skirt around the fact and complain the fact remains this is the only full frame camera that has NO way of stabilizing what you are looking at through the viewfinder.

Conversely and for the SAME reason, AF is not stabilized, putting more pressure on a already weaksauce AF.

when NO other system does it this way, and THIS way is not optimal, then it is a CON to the system.

Unlike you, rrccad, I shoot a Pentax DSLR at 630mm FOV regularly. IBIS reduces shake and has zero effect on framing or AF. Please show me any reference to these issues regarding Canon or Nikon shooters with non-stabilized telephoto lenses. I've never heard of it.

@rrccad Why the hell is a stabilized viewfinder THAT important to you? If your framing is that delicate every you can't use IBIS, you should ask yourself what you're doing! Or using the right equipment for your job and let other decide their own needs.

It's definitly not a con, it's a pro since you're talking the whole time about ONE of at least half a dozen features given by IBIS.

But let me carry out the negative sides of your lenses:With stabilized lenses you've to carry more in total, have bulkier lenses and have to buy the stabilized who are, surprise, more expensive by every lens. You're paying every time for stabilization. Stabilization in lenses is a good thing for hand held telephotos but for all other cases IBIS will do a better overall job.

"Prove it by testing, or it doesn't exist". I live in a world where this is a rule, proven over and over again by decades of practice.But most likely you know nothing about the importance of testing, so I shouldn't be too hard on you. Just don't try to be too rude, you're on the FAILing side in this discussion. And your motivation can be found in your gear list ;-)

What you're effectively saying is that since the A900, nobody proved this claim? Then, we can safely ignore it. If there was a significant effect, people would've detected it and we'd had proof.

What you need to test - obviously, for a thinking person with lots of common sense but for you I'll write it down - is that the effect you're describing is significant in practice. At the very least:- to show a decrease in AF performance with IS turned Off- to show a decrease in AE precision with IS turned OffYou'd have to do that within some normal envelope of hand holding shooting conditions.

@audiobomber .. congratulations. however again, you miss the point. Pentax and this K-1 is the only camera that will NOT stabilize the viewfinder. which was the entire point.

@Alex .. actually i have no motivation, if you note in my first post I complimented the sony dual IS system that they recently came out with. not to mention you are STILL pinning this on the AF the AF is secondary the primary issue is a non stabilized viewfinder? english not your first language or something?

Trying to pin this on bias shows you have zero credibility and no arguments to make your point.

having IBIS with an OVF ensures that you have a subpar solution with every other camera manufacturer out there.

Even SONY does this better.

@DerFalke - why the hell is it any of your business why i deem it important or not. every other system will stabilize the viewfinder perspective especially with telephotos - Pentax will not. Hard to grasp? and not every system needs IS lenses.

Oh, that you do it because you're a biased Canon fan is just a theory - but I don't have to prove it, right? ;-)

You keep parroting the same things over and over again. Bring proof.And read the forum's rules:Bashing: Deliberately and repeatedly bashing the same brand, product orcompany. If you have a complaint or comment to make, make it once and make sure you have facts to support it.

what proof do i need? do I actually NEED to prove that the viewfinder isn't stabilized?

really?

bashing? lol. actually this is fact. go cry in your forums if you feel differently.

first you cry about bias and now you try to pull out the rule book. do you really have THAT little of a soapbox to respond from?

it's my one issue really with Pentax cameras - stabilization of the sensor sans viewfinder makes little sense, especially when every other camera company will present a stabilized viewfinder perspective.

Prove that it has any deleterious effect on AF or framing. I say it's an advantage to see camera shake in the viewfinder. It has caused me on more than one occasion to improve my stance and grip to ensure that shake was minimized.

How is it rude when and the rest of the pentax defense league can't answer and admit to the single point that I brought up.

which is this:

Every other camera company's image stabilization will stabilize both the image sensor view AND the viewfinder view.

Pentax is the only company that will not.

Thus, it should be a CON in the list.

But good luck with that reporting, even though I find it amusing that you can insinuate that I have bias / lie / make up things and have to prove something as simply as viewfinder stability because the gear I have in my list?

EVERY SINGLE post has first off mentioned "STABILIZED VIEWFINDER" can you both grasp that concept.

I certainly hope you two can take better pictures than you can read, otherwise why bother buy any camera?

I should report this entire thread for the most idiotic defense of the lack of a camera feature to date.

No, it's a PRO. Obviously you can't get grasp of the concept. More features additional + image stabilization compared to one feature with heavy downsides for non telephoto users.

The most idiotic thing is defending a stabilizied viewfinder when a fraction of users really need it and ignoring the many other benfits of IBIS!The second idiotic thing is to point out the weakness of one system and the pros for another and crying like a little child: my choice is better!Sorry, I wouldn't argue with you again, you're obviously here to get in a brawl for nothing. Have a stabilized day or something what get you down from your trip.

the CON is that the fact that the viewfinder is not stabilized while the sensor is - like EVERY OTHER camera manufacturer. Every. Single. One. Of. Them.

Even Sony for the love of God (now anyways).

My god people.. is this SO hard to comprehend.

My day and my trip is perfectly fine - I'm in the midst of a 3 year trip through south and central america - I'm doing just fine.

Continue on in the unicorn world with the 11 other pentax users :)

and I wasn't in the midst of getting into a scrap, I made a well informed and polite opinion and then the Pentax defense committee took action because heaven FORBID something be found lacking in a pentax camera.

Remember the Nikon D800/800E that got a 35 page review complete with instructions about how to set up all the menu items & what they do? A camera that had (known later) PDAF issues at the time. No wifi, no Pix shift, no 87 weather seals, no astro tracker, no GPS, no TaV, no tilt screen, no function lighting, no focus peaking, no adjustable brightness on the LCD screen, it did have USB-3, cough, what's up with that Pentax? You have USB-3 on the aps/c cams. Anyway, a fuzzy blow up of a soccer player's face 'proved' it could do AF tracking. D800/800E (3300$) conclusion:

I'm trying to remember what "full-frame" Pentax had to offer back in FEBRUARY 2012 when the D800/800E were launched? Nothing, nada, zip. Maybe we should compare them to what Pentax did announce that month, the K-01??

Back in 2012, those Nikons were amongst the best DSLRs available. If they were launched today do you think they would garner the same scores/awards?

Hmmm, that's interesting, I hadn't noticed until now. Testing methods aside, both the D800E and the K-1 received a score of 84, yet one won a Gold award and one received Silver. It matters little to me as only one of these cameras is compatible with the lenses I own, but I would be interested to hear the rationale behind giving two different awards for the same score. Forgive me if this question has been asked already (which doesn't seem impossible given the length of the comment section).

Don't get too hung-up on the awards they are only good for today. Just like whoever won the Olympics 4/8/12 years ago is unlikely to win gold this year. Dpreview rate on what is available/possible at that time of the review. If the K1 had come out in 2012 it would have been Gold and a score north of 90 but today there is plenty of competition. If the D800E was launched today would not get any award.

So many comments. Maybe, DPReview staff needed to take a step back and see what an extraordinary accomplishment this was for Pentax. Also, all the pre-reviews seemed to have a different tenor. Now that the GearShop is no more, maybe reconsider dribbling out the reviews bit by bit?

The PENTAX K-70 employs PENTAX's first Hybrid AF system during Live View autofocus operation. By positioning a contrast-detection AF sensor with superior focusing accuracy and a phase-matching AF sensor on the image sensor's surface, this innovative hybrid system optimizes the benefits of both AF systems to assure high-speed, pinpoint AF focusing on the subject.

Get the K-70 if you want the best AF in a Pentax DSLR. If the K-1 had that and 4K UHD like many other cameras it would be a killer camera at that price.

It appears that many the negative comments directed to the reviewers are from individuals seeking validation instead of information regarding purchasing options. It is the latter that my comment addresses.

My problem stems from how the reviewers hand out Silver and Gold Awards. Consider the statement made in the review that "even in the most basic, single point AF shooting modes, the results are far from what we would expect from a modern DSLR focusing system." This is a very strong statement regarding something that is a core attribute of the camera and not a cool feature. If anything the reviewers should be admonished for slapping a Silver Award on a $1,800 camera built in 2016 that lacks "a proficient AF system". It is tough to reconcile these. Perhaps it is time to toss the Gold and Silver awards and rely on the scores and written reviews. The consumer might benefit. You guys are too nice about it.

Readers have every right to make negative comments if they feel there is a lack of consistency across reviews. Asking questions or raising concerns doesn't automatically mean fanboys have their pitchforks out. If the K-3 wins a Gold Award, and doesn't have a single Con listed regarding AF, and the K-1 review makes the case that the K-1 AF is an improvement upon ALL previous Pentax DLSRs, then one would not expect to see the very first Con in the K-1 review be "Poor AF". That makes zero sense.

As far as the awards, I hate the almost totally subjective DPR awards. The fact that Amazon is now listing "DPR Gold Award", "DPR Silver Award" in their camera listings is a turn off, the practice seems at the very least suspect, even dishonest. It's one reason I never buy cameras from Amazon.

I don't shoot Pentax, I have no horse in this race, but I understand Pentax shooter's frustrations with the politics of the camera industry. The good news is this K-1 review seems to be an outlier.

or maybe the AF is not that bad at all. take a look at the pentax forum section and see for yourself. that statement makes people think AF does not even work.So I wonder how K1, and worse how K3II, K3, K5, and older models owners are managing to take the shots? always manual?!!! please... don't joke me, stop saying nonsense things. All pentax users are able to take shots in bright day, dark days, with dim lights, and anything you might ever think.

As far as I understand it the Pentax AF has improved some since the K-5 which was generally agreed to be a bit flaky. That said the progress has been incremental compared to the competition.Mirrorless cameras have now closed the gap with some DSLR cams regarding AF tracking and Pentax tend to be bottom of the heap. OMD-1 and XT-1 were about equal with Pentax DSLRs and now we have XT-2 and Sony A6300 which are both looking like competent cameras for sports albeit with the limitations an EVF brings. It's time for Pentax to up their game. This issue is going to seriously impact sales otherwise.

@norman it would be amazing to see a better AF system on the pentax, no doubts. who could reject improvements? however the way this is presented makes people think the pentax can not focus or something like that which in fact nothing to do. It would be better to see faster AFC but AFS performs great which is most people use most of the time. And AFC while not being top notch is not useless as presented here, not at all. Again I would love to see AFC improved. So this matter is being overhyped.

Fair enough. I love Pentax cameras and my K-3's AF is pretty good in my experience but I've got to admit my A6000 was its match and only the OVF made the K-3 more attractive for shooting action. However I do hope Dpr do bear in mind that perhaps AF-C performance is not so critical for most folks and AFS in short bursts still lets you shoot action with a reasonable hit rate. A mention of 'catch in focus' is also worth noting. So if AF-C is not doing the business then switch to CI-F! ;-)

I take advantage of the fact that my K-01 (the mirrorless) is almost ISO-invariant all the time... at night or indoor in places like pubs, concert venues etc. you have strong highlights more often than not... and it's nice to be able to have max DR /and/ manageable noise levels.

More argumentation isn't necessary. I encourage everyone having access to a Pentax K1 to do the test himself and publish the results online. And there are already plenty of examples online showing Pentax K1 tracking capability, but, one review ignore them all. Interesting.

I shoot "things in flight" and motorsports with my K-1. I have 3 major airshows in the next few days, at which I expect it to take vast numbers of sharp photos. including fast jets. (I hope F-22, F-35A, F-35B, obviously Typhoon, and lots more!)

Fast jets, cars racing around a track etc., are often positioned at infinity, more or less, and when you're tracking them, you're essentially tracking them from infinity, through infinity, towards infinity. An iPhone with a long enough lens could do a pretty good job of that - it isn't hard. And if you're just panning, the AF system has even less work to do.

Our bike test is designed to stress the system, by requiring the AF to track from somewhere around infinity, and drive the lens's focusing elements quickly through their focus range towards closest focus. This allows us to get a proper impression of how adept the system is when it comes to tracking in depth as well as along the x-y axes.

@Barney Britton But you didn't have any predictive AF tracking test in your Canon 6D or Nikon D600. And the K-1 review clearly states in the conclusion that the K-1 AF system "is an improvement over previous Pentax DSLRs". If that is true, then why is the very first bullet point in the Cons section of the Conclusion "Poor AF"??? Neither the K5, K5II or K3 have a single negative AF bullet point in the Cons section of their respective reviews and according to your reviewer the K-1 is an improvement on the K5, K5II and K3??? Where is the consistency across Pentax reviews and reviews in general? And why should an entry level FF DSLR at the ground breaking price of $1800 be judged so harshly, and tested more rigorously than other similar cameras (6D, D600)?

@Barney can you please explain what are you expecting the camera to do when you are using central point focus @200mm and then hoping the face is focused, given the shallow dof at that focal length that only gets worse when the biker comes closer? if you would like it to track the head you need to choose the main focus point to be the one that is at that place. For me the camera is following the body of the biker and thats why thing looks like they look. Leaving the camera to automatically choose something is not something most people do, at least not me nor anyone I know being him pentax, nikon, canon shooter.

Barney: the review in essence suggests that the K1 AF does not work - while all K1 users are happy with it (within its limits), and having first hand experience with it are baffled by your conclusion. Something does not add up. If I was a reviewer / editor I would ask what is wrong with that equation.

Barney Britton: you said "Fast jets, cars racing around a track etc., are often positioned at infinity".

Wow! Not even close!

I've been shooting those in vast numbers for many years, and it is certain that accurate AF is essential!

In fact, sometimes I don't even get the whole car within the depth of field. I have to make choice such as "do I use f/5.6 and risk not getting the whole thing in focus at 200mm or 450mm or whatever?", or "do I use f/8 and not blur the background enough and get a little bit more noise?"

Sometimes when planes are performing the "pass", where they hurtle towards one-another and just miss, I find I've panned with the one that is furthest from the camera, & got a poor shot because the closest one is out of focus, which is artistically bad. Similarly, if two racing bikes are having a tussle, it is typically important to to get the closest one to the camera in focus, for similar reasons.

"It becomes the only conventional DSLR to offer a full frame sensor with image stabilization."

Could be a little clearer... you really mean the only FF DSLR still in production. The Sony a900 had in-body stabilisation, and is certainly still available used. In fact, I just sold mine last month. :-) The quoted statement makes it sound like this camera was pioneering in this aspect...

This is a case of the "telephone game". The Sony a900 was the first FF to offer IBIS, the K-1 is the first to offer it on 5 axes. Originally it was reported correctly, but over time the media has omitted the 5 axis part.

I do not know if someone else already summed up to what the AF / AF-S discussion boils down - so here is my take: It is irritating that DPRs test procedures makes them dismiss the K1 AF in their conclusion with "poor AF", and in their autofocus section dismiss even the AF-S as failing about half the time - while literally all K1 users are happy with the K1 AF (operating within its limits respectively compensating its limits with skill, see plenty examples on Pentax DSLR forum).This should raise questions: if (a) either DPR test procedures do not match how real world K1 users apply their K1 or (b) the K1 users are plain stupid to not notice their failing AF.Plus, it remains to be asked if DPR used a faulty body / lens: I have never heard of or used a Pentax AF-S failing about half the time (no matter if center point, border point or auto).Regarding AF-C and tracking: for me no doubt here, the Pentax implementation is miles behind what other manufacturers deliver.

I shoot action, I rely 100% on accurate AF, and for me the K-1 is very good. I can routinely shoot a 12-frame burst of a racing car heading towards & across me, every frame accurately focused. (I've posted such bursts in the Pentax SLR forum).

But my shooting style appears to be different from the style that DPReview tests. I mainly use center-point AF. I point the center of the viewfinder at the subject, press & hold the shutter button, keep the camera pointing at the subject as it moves, & release the shutter button when I have enough. (I use the latest Pentax FF lenses). The K-1 has no trouble with this.

But a lot of the emphasis of the K-1's review was on other shooting styles, such as using lots of AF points, perhaps letting the camera instead of the user do the tracking. If lots of people shoot like that, they HAVE to test it.

I think they should place equal emphasis on all valid styles. But the summaries & conclusions falsely give the impression that NO style works well.

That's exactly how I feel Barry, the swerving biker test is for Nikon's 3D tracking, which is great. But Pentax doasn't work that way. Tracking like you do is more of a norm, and the way Pentax expects their cameras to be used. It works pretty well, as you and Mike have demonstrated over and over again, without saying it is at sports-camera level. AF should be tested like that too, but I'm sure it's harder to do a scientific panning test.....

"...literally all K1 users are happy with the K1 AF (operating within its limits respectively compensating its limits with skill, see plenty examples on Pentax DSLR forum)"

I think DPR's job is to test the capabilities of cameras, not the abilities of users to compensate for the limits of those capabilities.

I have no real problems with AF-S on my K-3, and I seem to remember that even in the K-5 review, DPR was writing very favorably about the AF, mentioning only a handful of misfocused shots. OTOH, if nowadays other camera in similar conditions fare better, I'd like to know about it. Other people's skills are irrelevant to me, because I'm not other people.

A camera is benchmarked against the market but that market exists only at a point in time. So I guess Pentax K-1 would have scored better if it was released before D810 and worse if reviewed next year when competitors introduce similar features.

Every camera have its shortcomings. Making a purchase with the knowledge of its shortcomings and you have no complaints. Making a purchase and realised that it is flawed and you will be bitter.

now the review is up and Rishi Sanyal insists on his sufficient evidences I ask Richo to give us a new firmware or to return my money !!just kidding but i realy want Ricoh to respond to what dpr has found!

I get it that the science and methodology of the review process evolves all of the time. This inevitably creates an imbalance in that earlier gear may not be tested in the same way as modern gear.

Surely the solution for a test is to compare the camera in question to its nearest obvious competitor at the same time?

In this example, I think readers would love to see a D810 used at precisely the same time and in the same way as a K-1 and with the same subject. Only then could a proper judgment be passed, surely?

This isn't hard to find on other sites. People in the 'real world" reviewing game ( as they call it ) in the absence of a scientific approach to testing, just grab a couple of cameras and try them out at the same time. This isn't to be denigrated - it is actually a pretty good approach.

As I've mentioned before that didn't factor into the overall score for the camera but are we not supposed to thoroughly test and critique the feature? If it's going to be used by folks who are unfamiliar with the technology it's fair to give them an idea of what its limitations are.

Chris, how about listing AF-C as a Con for every camera for landscape shooters? Seems like bias if you don't list pixel shift as a Pro for product photography, macros, and still life, but instead list is as a Con for something it's not designed for.

Dprived, they also use the Nikon iso 64 feature to claim the D810 has greater dynamic range, but refuse to use the K-1's Pixel shift technology to admit the K-1 has greater dynamic range. The justification is, apparently, that it is unfair to compare the Pentax feature to the Nikon as the Nikon does not have PS, but it is OK to compare the ISO range even though the Pentax does not have this feature. Strange convoluted logic.

"The justification is, apparently, that it is unfair to compare the Pentax feature to the Nikon as the Nikon does not have PS, but it is OK to compare the ISO range even though the Pentax does not have this feature."

Where did we say this? First of all, it's flat out wrong, because we did note the K-1's DR surpasses the D810 in PSR mode a number of times in this review. Second, if we were going to provide some justification for not comparing the two, what you suggest was our justification certainly wouldn't be it, because it makes no sense whatsoever.

Instead, the justification could be that PSR doesn't work with moving subjects, while D810's ISO 64 does. So if you're shooting landscapes with moving objects, or portraits where there's lot of available light, you can take advantage of the extra SNR & DR of the D810's ISO 64 to get crispness of images that rival medium format.

It perplexes me - why do certain members feel the need to flat out lie and put words in our mouth?

Firstly Rishi, you will note the word 'apparently'. I did not say that DPR said it, it is my evaluation of what the reasoning is, 'apparently'. Maybe you are a little sensitive to critique at the moment. Your (DPR) justification for not flat out stating that the K-1 is capable of better IQ than the D810 front and center, at the opening of the review is puzzling. Especially as other reviews have claimed the K-1 to be the best landscape camera available. Instead you list at the top of the 'cons' list the words 'poor AF' (I know it has been amended, but that is beside the point), and instead of a discussion about how wonderful it is that the D810 and the K-1 can take such gorgeous luscious pictures, we have seen a torrent of comment about the fact that the Pentax does not have the AF tracking of its rivals. Well DURR, this is a landscape, field camera, not a blazing sports camera.

You say 'The K-1 also offers some of best dynamic range on the market (falling just short of the Nikon D810 at base ISO)' Where you could just as easily have said 'the K-1 offers the best dynamic range available in a DSLR when pixel shift technology is used, handily surpassing that of the former market leader, the D810. ', or words to that effect. Emphasising the design philosophy of the K-1, instead it is damned with faint praise, and we are to believe it is still, 'close, but not good enough'.

And for the record Rishi, it does work with moving objects. Statement of fact. I have one, I know. I concede there is a limit to the movement, but your statement is still incorrect. It even works hand held to a point. Just because you guys made a hash of your 'first looks' with the feature doesn't mean it doesn't do as it claims.

It perplexes me, why do some reviewers get so defensive of their methodology?

Why would we say that? It's the D810 that technically surpasses the DR of all FF cameras. If you shoot 4 images on a D810, you can get even better DR than a K-1. Why would we start off by saying some multi-shot mode on the K-1 exceeds the D810?

This literally makes no sense. It would be like saying: "The K-1, in a mode that doesn't work with moving subjects or hand-held, can exceed any other camera shot hand-held or with moving subjects."

Um. And so can any other FF camera that you shoot 4 images with & average using any stacking program, like PhotoAcute.

Other sites have claimed the K-1 is a great landscape camera? (1) So have we, and (2) other sites have no clue what ISO 64 on a D810 even provides, or what shot noise even is, or what actually determines dynamic range (save for DXO, and Bill Claff, and a select other few). Not sure you should come to us and tell us about 'other sites' who don't understand, nor test for, half the things we do.

Our statement about moving objects is incorrect? No it's not. We say implicitly that relative to its contemporaries, it falls behind, and it does - way behind. Behind even mirrorless contemporaries. By your philosophy, a manual focus camera still works with moving subjects. Doesn't mean it's far worse than a camera with AF.

We get defensive when audience members put words in our mouth we didn't say, then call us incompetent because they fail to understand the very test methodology we outlined in our AF page because, well, they didn't read it.

You were even worse - you made up some made up justification and stated it as if we made that justification.

You essentially made stuff up, then said 'this is apparently what DPR said' - & then you wonder why we get defensive?

It perplexes me - why do audience members get upset when we don't word a review exactly how they wished it worded?

Would you be happy if we complied to the request of every Nikon fanboy when writing Nikon reviews?

Quote "This literally makes no sense. It would be like saying: "The K-1, in a mode that doesn't work with moving subjects or hand-held, can exceed any other camera shot hand-held or with moving subjects"

No it wouldn't. Lets go back to what I suggested could have been alternate wording. - 'the K-1 offers the best dynamic range available in a DSLR when pixel shift technology is used, handily surpassing that of the former market leader, the D810. ', or words to that effect.

Please note where I added the caveat 'where pixel shift is used' Did you not notice that phrase? You have elsewhere in the review dealt with the limitations of PS, and I agree the use is limited, but the results stunning.

contI'm sure you could have written in a D810 review 'this camera would be even better if it had a feature like Pixel shift to bring out even more dynamic range' but it cannot be used, ever, under any circumstances. Nil, Nada. So is that a fail for the Nikon? No, of course not. So why use a parameter that Pentax doesn't have to downgrade the comparison. How about something like ' the D810 and K-1 have essentially equal IQ in native mode, and where ISO 64 gives an impressive additional increase in IQ where it is appropriate to use it, simmilarly, PS gives an even greater range of IQ out of camera where its use is appropriate?

cont againOh and please stop saying PS cannot be used with moving objects or hand held. It can, within limited parameters.

Quote "Our statement about moving objects is incorrect?"

Not 'our words', your own words Rishe, this is what I was quoting - these are them - 'PSR doesn't work with moving subjects' I take it you are not going to argue with yourself? You state, without qualification that it flat out doesn't work. I'm here to tell you it does to an extent. So why, also in your words, do you "feel the need to flat out lie"

To your point about multiple D810 images - by your logic Rishi, I could take 4 PS images with the K-1 and then output them to the programs you cite and have even greater IQ than 4 images taken on the D810? Maybe you could take 16 images with the D180, and then I could do the same. This could go on ad infinitum, you could make straw man arguments, I could refute them, etc. Lets not.

Once again, I did NOT put words in your mouth, It seems you have trouble with the qualifier 'apparently'. Where I come from, one of the usages of this word is to mean ' this is my take on it'. I was actually trying to be polite, you took umbrage. Fair enough lets talk about it. Calling me a liar is a step too far

You accuse me of making things up - I did not make up my take on the logic of using one set of parameters which is unique to one camera to promote its worth while not doing the exact same thing with a different unique feature of even greater value in term of overall IQ (when it is useable). Correct me if I'm wrong ( I don't have a PhD) but as I understand it the iso 64 gives about 2/3 of a stop more dynamic range than ISO 100 and the PS feature gives about 2 stops.

So a feature of less overall impact on an identical image is given greater weight than a feature which can be used to give greater impact. That was my take on what you guys said. APPARENTLY I'm not entitled to an opinion about my own opinion. (oh Rishi, if you are going to quote me, please do so accurately - I never used the words 'this is apparently what DPR said'

@DPR I have to say I don't understand why you only mentioned two PSR-related cons and no pro saying that it has pixel shift in the first place. Also, you say you mention increased DR as a PSR pro a few times throughout the review. I think you should realize that many people, when reading a review, will first read the conclusion page to see what the general verdict is before spending more time reading into the details of how that verdict was established. The verdict therefore should be representative of those specifics, and no new information should be added. Only when they consider the conclusion and pros/cons to be acceptable will they read on about the specifics. In the pros/cons, the benefits of PSR are nowhere to be found and you only highlight the limitations.

So I think, either this is poor judgement on your part, or something else is going on.

Rishi, I cannot figure out how to quote your posts without costing me character penalties in the reply, so take this as a response to your last

Rishi, if you had posted something like this, educated, informed, educational, as a reply to my initial post, and not simply assumed I was making s_it up for the sake of it, we could have had a far more pleasant exchange; my respect for you would have grown and the camera community in general would be the better for it. Your initial response was that I was lying, I was not, it offends me greatly that I should be so labelled, and I have given you ample opportunity to be graceful about it.

I was WRONG in my assumption that ISO 64 was just an extended mode on the D610, I was uninformed, and based my comments on incorrect data.

I had assumed (dangerously it turns out) that the ISO 64 was just another extended ISO feature such as has been available in, eg the K-5. For that I apologise. Thank you for educating me

I will still maintain that the review contains unnecessarily negative intonations, and that perhaps given the flack of the last couple of days you were maybe a little sensitive to critisism, Perhaps you should think a little about how you responded.

all things being equal, ISO 64 is NOT and has NEVER been an action ISO, right?

YES: you can go to the arctics for example, on a sunny day, and use ISO 64 to capture a moving subject @ say, 1/500" F:16

but then it'd be an underexposed shot and low light detail would be lost, so, you'd have to overexpose at least 2 stops in order to get a 'good' shot under such circumstances, which ...

YES: you can have 1-billion joules strobes in some studio or field set up and freeze moving subjects @ 1/16`000" F:45 (plus some ND filters too!) using ISO64 but then you'd probably be making lots of people and cats and cockroaches and things go blind at the same time just as well and possibly set the place on fire too! ;-)

therefore: NO, ISO 64 is not an action-freezing setting really, not in a 'practical' way at least.

but i'd agree it's great for many landscape or product shot applications, PROVIDED it's a true ISO 64 and not just a 'one-step-down' exposure control from ISO 125.

The IRIX 15mm will be available in K mount. Pentax has one on its lens timeline. There are a number of Pentax and Sigma UWAs from the past. You can now convert most Nikon F mount lenses to K mount using a Leitax mount conversion bayonnet. Some Zeisses have been lonverted, Leicas etc.I just got a used M20mm f/4 and love it, despite its poor corners. 90% of the image is of very high quality and the filters are 49mm, like all the limiteds (spare the 31 and 20-40). The lens is tiiiiiiny by any standards and always makes it into my bag together with a full filter set.

Oh, are there any tests yet which show the quality of converted Nikon lenses? Getting a Pentax Body with Nikon lenses could be a good solution until some more lenses are released - and I wouldn't have to change the lens park right away. I somehow would like to return to Pentax to be honest. And about the Irix I have yet to see good practical tests but it looks promising indeed!

The review team are following the DPReview standard method for tests, and they shouldn't be attacked for that.

But that method is delivering conclusions that those of us who routinely successfully shoot properly-focused action with the K-1 find bizarre. It is as if the K-1 in my hands isn't the same as the K-1 in the reviewer's hands.

The DPReview team test each camera's complex AF technology. As a user, I don't use the complexity. If the K-1 had just a single good AF point in the center I would be OK doing my action photography. But such a camera would be laughed out of court!

Somewhere, there is a hole in the review method. It doesn't appear capable of speaking to someone who uses my style of shooting, even though it works. Am I the only one left who uses center point AF? Or are there others who also are not catered for properly by this sort of review?

The reviewers must follow whatever method is current. But I think their current method has a hole in it.

The problem I have with it, Barry, is that it is not a standardised test. The movement and speed of the cyclist are not controlled, nor is the lighting. So to me, Rishi's phrasing, "[we] just went downstairs", although made in irony, actually rings somewhat true. Different shirt, different bike, different bloke, different light - someone else made a longer argument of this, see here:

You have kept up w/ all advances, & are using photographic technology to its full potential for all use cases?

We test every camera, & keep up with emerging trends. We try to stay on top of how those emerging trends impact photography, largely because we're a bunch of photographers who are also technologists.

If you don't trust that we try & evaluate new technologies as they apply to photographic use-cases, then perhaps you shouldn't actually be reading our reviews.

When new developments push the creative opportunities of photography forward, we update our 'baseline' based on the performance of these new technological trends. When we then evaluate a technology that fails to meet those trends, those who aren't happy with those results cry foul, saying 'well it doesn't matter'.

Well, it does matter - b/c it can help your art, & it's worth enlightening you as to this progress, & which products fall short of it.

Despite all that, we're still wrong, or incompetent, or trying to mislead you, right?

OTOH, you'd rather just accept one test performed by some random guy in a video where they don't show you anything more than 0.8MP images b/c... well b/c you like those results better b/c confirmation bias, right?

Rishi Sanyal: You said 'Whatever method is current'? And 'your method' is current, is it?"

My method is ONE of the current methods. It is still one of the most effective methods for some types of photography.

Just because new technology offers different options doesn't mean that everyone needs to switch for all their work. Are we now to say "ALL cameras will be tested for their Pixel Shift capability"?

It is obvious that I am in the target market for the K-1. I shoot mostly action, & using my method of shooting, the K-1 is very good for that, with very effective AF giving me end-to-end in-focus photos in a burst. Yet had I relied on this review to make my purchasing decision, I wouldn't have bought the K-1.

That says something about the value of such reviews. They are not mainly testing the ability of people like me to come home with memory cards full of keepers. (Which is surely the point of photography?) They are testing technology trends that some potential buyers don't need.

@Barry Pearson "The DPReview team test each camera's complex AF technology. As a user, I don't use the complexity. If the K-1 had just a single good AF point in the center I would be OK doing my action photography. But such a camera would be laughed out of court!"

You can set any fullframe DSLR, whether it be a Canon, Nikon or Pentax, to use the center point. But this would not be testing the AF tracking abilities. Tracking means tracking the subject through the AF area, switching to another AF point when needed. If you don't need this, that's fine and you should use the camera the way you like. However, this is a review site. They test cameras to their limits. As such, I completely understand that their test methodology includes AF tracking.

@Rishi Sanyal "AF is not just about sports." AF is not only AF_C with pentax, why do you always speak of AF when you explicitly mean AF-C. I didn't see any negative comments about the AF-S option. Did you test AF-C - with 9 points- with all points- with the selectable point- SEL-S (9) , SEL-M (25), SEL-L (33)

- Did you test contrast focus

There are some questions to your fotos.Did you exchange them this morning? (06.07.2016)

Just another question:Is it correct that the small picture in the lower left corner is the complete picture, especially in the section of the center AF point in AF-C? If yes, please can you explain why the central autofocus point is in the middle of the left tibia of the sports man. (this is the part of cyclist moving heavily). I would have taken the face or the helmet for the test.

Your test in total seems to be good, but some wording concerning AF in general could be improved to be precise. Most of the problems discussed here are about the wording

Why is the central AF point on his tibia? Because we didn't use the center AF point. We used a focus point higher up from center. Furthermore, click through to the full-size images. Richard's tibia, jersey, and body all lie within the DOF. You can see that for most of the images, the camera lags behind, focusing behind the bike, only catching up every few shots. Classic behavior of a camera/lens focus system trying to catch up, but still focused on where the rider was in the previous instant.

Does our data/presentation actually prevent you from coming to the same exact conclusion we came to?

The wording follows industry standards - AF-S vs. AF-C, and single point vs. subject tracking. I'm not sure how we could be any more clear, and any confusion is likely up to readers' confusion over AF modes vs. AF area modes, and Z-axis vs. X-Y axis tracking.

Note we've tried to clarify these topics over the last couple years of reviews, but we can't keep repeating every principle (of depth vs. subject tracking, for example) in every review. At some point, we have to assume you've been reading the content on our site and are now familiar with standard terminology, don't you think?

That said, I'll try to clarify the points even further in the Conclusion. But, seriously, when we do that, we get complaints about our text being too long...

@Rishi: You wrote "...we didn't use the center AF point. We used a focus point higher up from center."

It has been claimed that an inspection of the metadata revealed that contrary to your statement the centre AF point (#17) was used.

Could you look into this matter, please?

Surely, it would be not a useful test, if you inadvertedly used the wrong AF point.

I think you will also agree that contrast differences can have a huge impact so an argument that the tibia was in the same plane of focus than a higher contrast face/helmet would have to be rejected on the basis of comparability.

In some of the shots, it seems highly unlikely that any part of the rider was covered by your selected AF point. I'll stay out of this discussion as other people have already made extensive analyses and comments. I trust, however, that DPReview -- just as they did with their PixelShift test -- will repeat any evaluation that turns out not to be up to scratch.

Is anyone else seeing problems with reaching focus at infinity with A series lenses? The first weekend I tried my K-1, I noticed that all distant landscapes shot with my Pentax A 24/f2.8 were soft, but I just figured I messed something up. However, now that I've spent more time with the camera, I'm learning that there are a number of A-series lenses that it won't work with (a brand new Rokinon 14mm/f2.8 is another example). I'm wondering if others are seeing this or if it's only my camera. Note that these lenses work fine on my other Pentax cameras (an ist*D and a K20D). I'm getting the impression that Pentax my have changed the flange to sensor distance just enough to make it impossible to reach focus with some earlier lenses, but I'd like to confirm this.

Its possible your flange distance is wrong. It should be made to the standard. Otherwise FA lenses would not work either. This is the first complaint about it I have read. Have you tried live view to see if maybe you are actually focusing past infinity? Most of my manual lenses have sloppy stops and focus slightly past which is actually kind of fine with me. I would rather them have a little play than be too short. I would consider exchanging your camera for another, but that's me. Manual lenses should work fine. The flange distance is critical and they would never change that.

No the flange distance is the same. But 36 mpx is quite demanding, so being a little off will show. Old manual lens can be properly calibrated by a technician. Samyang has a history of mis-placed infinity stops, but that is also fixable.

Thanks for the suggestions. Yes, I'll post in the Pentax DSLR forum. Also, I've checked to see whether I'm focusing past infinity, and that's not the case (I have several lenses that let me go past infinity, and it's pretty obvious in Live View when I do). With respect to having the lenses calibrated, you guys may be right, but it just really bothers me that these lenses work fine on other Pentax cameras (they even work fine on my Sony A7II which is of similar resolution). Why should I have to spend money to get them to work on a camera that is claimed to work with them?

Are you using the in-focus indicator to determine when your shot is in focus? If so that might indicate the need for some AF fine adjustment, even though you are using a manual lens. (I'm not sure if the camera will be able to remember the setting on a per-lens basis though with an A-series lens) You can check by listening for the in focus confirmation, then switching to live view with punch-in magnification. If there is a discrepancy, try a +/- 2 adjustment, and see if it improves.

I must thank the DPR staff for doing a thorough job of testing the camera!

It is unfortunate that a test by experts, who regularly test different brands, doesn't meet the observations/expectations of Pentax-ians. I doubt these fans have much experience in testing cameras!

Pentax dSLRs in the past have had awful auto focusing, and I have two of them. Not only that, flash integration is very poor. Pentax has traditionally been poor in supporting AF, whether somebody is using their camera for sports or not -- it is possible that many people have not really seen what a Nikon 810 focusing capacity is!

I love Pentax FF special lenses like 31mm and 77mm, they are superb. But Pentax in releasing their FF camera might have had a deadline to meet, and they couldn't rev up the AF module again.

Judging from the superior Dynamic Range of K-1, it is quite possible the next rev of K-1 will have much superior AF capabilities!

Rishi,I did a test several days before your review was published with a skateboarder coming downhill towards me past me and away from me downhill with almost 100 % strike rate apart from the chasing go pro car getting in on the action !!This was achieved with an old smc F 70-210.I am keen to perform a variety of tests on different planes and angles but my thread was of glowing results !!Its a bit scary for many when your one tests flies in the face of the rest of us who are achieving great results and your quick brush of the key board can affect the opinion of thousands. It is no wonder your getting a hard time but its increasing the hit rate and i suspect the truth will find its way out in due course.I think we are all in awe of nikons AF performance but many of us smell a rat ....

@thegreat26, please note, I grew up with K1000. I doubt a person as young as Rishi has even seen that camera (I just looked up his profile, and wish I were that young).

@yesman12, yes you are right I joined only yesterday, after going through a painful registration with DPR -- that registration interface is screwed up far more than K-1's focusing ;-) Yes, I am computer savvy.

The reason I joined is, I thought the DPR reviewers were facing an unwarranted disapproval -- to put it mildly. And I too have been waiting for K-1 for a long time, and every time Pentax has come up with a new camera their AF story always lags the competition. Nothing new about that, though sad. I was not impressed with my K-3 & 300mm AF response, that was for wildlife photography once I had gone to a bird-sanctuary.

BTW, previous Pentax dSLRs have also had sub-standard Jpeg images. Their RAW support is just awesome -- universal RAW format support is really appreciated. In my experience, Sony & Fuji give out really good Jpegs.

Reality is never as bad or as good as internet "truth". It's possible that while "poor" by dpr standards, the AF performance of the K-1 is quite good enough for many people and their use cases. It seems that some users are capable of doing amazing work with this camera. I take issue with the characterization of the auto-focus as "poor"; that would seem to suggest that it is unusable, while it clearly is not.

My K-1 routinely accurately focuses on fast moving objects such as aircraft, racing bikes, racing cars, scrambling bikes, etc. They are typically initially moving towards me, then across me, then sometimes away from me, in perhaps 12 frames over a period of about 3 seconds. I typically get every frame sharp. I've published examples of photos & whole bursts in the Pentax SLR forum.

Apparently the K-1 in my hands acts differently from the K-1 in reviewers' hands! I don't know why for certain. But I suspect it is simply that I use center-point AF ("Spot") in AF-C mode, & pan with the subject during the burst. It works!

I realise that reviewers have to test a camera's capability for all sorts of shooting styles. I assume lots of people use camera-tracking rather than user-panning, so it has to be tested.

But I feel that the FACT that people who use the same style as me get good results should feature as an extra conclusion of any review. I'm certainly in the target market for the K-1!

I got to try out a new DFA 15-30 f/2.8 on a K1 today. This lens can be added to the list of lenses that posses superior AF speed & focus acquisition on the K1 camera. Not that it matters for the typical application which is mostly manual focus landscapes & architecture from a tripod. The lens is almost distortion free at 20mm and very sharp across the frame.

Reading all the contradictory comments about AF reminds me of the UK referendum - you just don't know what to believe. I suppose it is all comparative and those that have experienced much better AF are not afraid to say so. However I do wonder if Pentax defaults are partly to blame and user inexperience also? Whatever, it seems clear that if Pentax could up their game with AF then they could wipe the floor with the competition. So hopefully Pentax are listening and prioritize AF development for the K2.

I agree about the default settings. Ricoh has a definite idea of what type of photography the camera is intended. How about they send out some information to users about how to set the AF up for various scenarios? I didn't just hire a Canon 7DII and immediately know how to set up User 2 for BIF & User 3 for football. I had to do some research and dig into the menus. Ask questions on the forum.

How to set up AF? There's one setting. Which we varied and tested. Give us a break. This is the defense Canon users love to hide behind as well, even though we've blown that myth and showed (and will be showing in the 1D-X II review) the trade-offs you have to make to make the Canon's AF system as responsive as Nikon's... (heresy, I know).

There are many AF settings, & lots of combinations of them, on the K-1, to suit various types of action & various shooting styles. (7 focusing areas, various selected positions, choice of priorities & other adjustments, etc).

It can be overwhelming, & people in the Pentax SLR forum & elsewhere have had lots of discussion over the last 2 months about the best choices in particular circumstances. I think Ricoh DO need to take some blame for bad choices.

I get good results by ignoring nearly all complications and using AF-C with just the center spot and panning during the burst. I can routinely get a burst of (say) 12 frames of cars, racing bikes, aircraft, with every one sharp.

But it isn't an obvious way of using the K-1, and other people probably struggle a lot. And some people don't want to use that panning style. (Also, I suspect that, having put all those extra AF points in the K-1, it might appear to be a cop-out or climb-down to recommend such an old-school shooting style!)

I don't have a K-1, but my K-3 has several settings that affect AF-C. I use the following for action:AF Select, with 9, 25 or 27 point expansionCustom Menu Parameter Settings: 16. 1st frame action in AF-C - Focus priority (make sure focus is on the target before shooting, or you'll have a string of misses) 17. Action in AF-C Continuous - Focus Priority 18. Hold AF status - My default is Medium, but I've used High for sports. Low wanders off the target too readily.I turn shake reduction off with the K-3, but one shouldn't have to with the K-3 II or K-1.

I've shot lots of action series with far superior results to what was reported in the K-1 review.

What puzzles me is if center, single focus point is used, as indicated by EXIF, that seems not to be the location of the jersey, but focus is actually on the cyclist's black shorts or the bike's handlebar.

It starts on the border of the black shorts to white shirt (high contrast border), eventually covering the high contrast logo on his jersey as he approaches (we chose a point above center).

All of which is irrelevant, of course, b/c none of those features are consistently in focus: not the handlebar, not the shorts, not the shirt, not the face, but typically a plane behind the bike - indicative of the AF system trying to constantly catch up (and every 3-4 frames, it does catch up).

It doesn't matter what is under the AF point - as long as it's a reasonable subject with contrast. The camera is supposed to focus on whatever is under the AF point, & we routinely - for all cameras - focus on the shirt of the rider as it tends to be a high contrast target.

Then, we show a crop of the face, which tends to fall w/in the DOF, b/c the face is an easy target for determining in/out-of-focus.

What's so different here? Click-thru to full-res images. Does your conclusion change?

Yes because that's what we do for every camera, because the head falls within the DOF of what we focused on: the jersey (save for shots very, very close to the camera, which we don't even include because they're typically out-of-focus save for the very best performers like a Nikon D5 or D500).

More importantly, we provide all images at full-res if you click-through.

What is stopping you from enlarging each image from the sequence and checking focus yourself?

Were you to do so, you'd come to the exact same conclusion we did: that the camera didn't focus on anything near our selected AF point (just north of center).

Instead of justifying all the errors in your test. Why not focus on how to make a test that acually works and that is repetable?My guess would be that the energy it would take would be much less. It took me 1 minut to come up with a better repeatable test.A test where you can actually use on of the f2.8 autofocus sensors when the lens is set to f2.8 and not like you did in your test.I see the same defencive behaviour here from you as when dpr released the flawed Pixel shift test.

More about gear in this article

Seattle-based photographer Neil Buckland has been working with University of Washington scientist Dr. Tony Irving to photograph, in incredible detail, slices of meteorites that have fallen to earth with his Pentax K-1 and a custom-built rig. Get a look into space, and into the past, with some of Buckland's images.

For a limited time this summer, current K-1 owners will be able to send their cameras in for a circuit board replacement, essentially upgrading to a Mark II. They'll even get a Mark II logo swapped in on the front of the camera.

The D850 was just announced, and by all accounts it's shaping up to be a very impressive DSLR. But should you upgrade your current camera? In this article, we've broken down the D850's main selling points compared to several popular models.

Ricoh has added two prime lenses to its full-frame lens lineup for the Pentax K-1: the forthcoming D FA* 50mm F1.4 and 85mm F1.4. Although details are scant, we did sneak a peek at the 50mm, on the show floor. Read more

Latest in-depth reviews

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

The Edelkrone DollyONE is an app-controlled, motorized flat surface camera dolly. The FlexTILT Head 2 is a lightweight head that extends, tilts and pans. They aren't cheap, but when combined these two products provide easy camera mounting, re-positioning and movement either for video work or time lapse photography.

Are you searching for the best image quality in the smallest package? Well, the GR III has a modern 24MP APS-C sensor paired with an incredibly sharp lens and fits into a shirt pocket. But it's not without its caveats, so read our full review to get the low-down on Ricoh's powerful new compact.

The Olympus OM-D E-M1X is the ultimate sports, action and wildlife camera for professional Micro Four Thirds users. However, it can't quite match the level of AF reliability offered by its full frame competitors.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.

What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

We've updated our waterproof camera buying guide with the latest round of rugged compacts, and we've crowned a new winner as the best pick in the category: the Olympus TG-6. That is, unless you happen to find a good deal on the TG-5.

Researchers with the Samsung AI Center in Moscow and the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology have created a system that transforms still images into talking portraits with as little as a single image.

K&R Photographics, a camera store in Crescent Springs, Kentucky, was robbed by armed men, who not only took thousands of dollars worth of camera equipment, but also injured the 70-year-old co-owner of the store.

The new Fujifilm GFX 100 boasts some impressive specifications, including 100MP, in-body stabilization and 4K video. But what's it like to shoot with? Senior Editor Barnaby Britton found out on a recent trip to Florence, Italy.

It's here! The long-awaited next-generation Fujifilm GFX has been officially launched. Click through to learn more about the camera that Fujifilm is hoping will shake up the pro photography market - the GFX100.

We've known about the Fujifilm GFX 100 since last fall, but now it's official: this 102MP medium-format monster will be available at the end of June for $10,000. In addition to its incredible resolution, the camera also has in-body IS, a hybrid AF system, 4K video and a removable EVF.

According to DJI, any drone model weighing over 250 grams will have AirSense Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) receivers installed to help drone operators know when planes and helicopters are nearby.

Chris and Jordan are kicking off a new segment in which they make feature suggestions to manufacturers for the benefit of all photographer-kind. To start things off, they take a look at the humble USB-C port and everything it could be doing for us.

The Olympus TG-5 is one of our favorite waterproof cameras, and the company today introduced the TG-6, a relatively low-key update. New features include the addition of an anti-reflective coating on the sensor, a higher-res LCD, and more underwater and macro modes.

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

We've been playing around with a prototype of the new Peak Design Travel Tripod and are impressed so far: it's incredibly compact, fast to deploy and stable enough for the heaviest bodies. However, the price may turn some away.